Mel
Here is the full text you are referring to:
"13. Notice of the consignor’s liberty to place bids on his lots in the Auction is hereby made in accordance with Article 2 of the Texas Business and Commercial Code. A “Minimum Bid” is an amount below which the lot will not sell. THE CONSIGNOR OF PROPERTY MAY PLACE WRITTEN ”Minimum Bids” ON HIS LOTS IN ADVANCE OF THE AUCTION; ON SUCH LOTS, IF THE HAMMER PRICE DOES NOT MEET THE “Minimum Bid”, THE CONSIGNOR MAY PAY A REDUCED COMMISSION ON THOSE LOTS. ”Minimum Bids” are generally posted online several days prior to the Auction closing. For any successful bid placed by a consignor on his Property on the Auction floor, or by any means during the live session, or after the ”Minimum Bid” for an Auction have been posted, we will require the consignor to pay full Buyer’s Premium and Seller’s Commissions on such lot."
It does not say that there is any limit to how high the "minimum bids" may be, and therefore they could place sky high "minimums" on any and all lots (way over the estimate), and then wait to see what absentee bids they get, and then lower the minimum to match the absentee bids, and they would have in effect shill bid that person, and it would be 100% legal (if I am understanding their convoluted language correctly)!
What do you think, Mel?
Bruce
Hi Bruce,
I really think that these issues are part of what come up in the auction context. I don't think there is any way to guarantee that someone won't register under a second username just for the purposes of bidding up his wares. While I understand the hypothetical situation you've posted, I haven't seen any evidence that such a scheme has been put in effect by anyone. Moreover, I don't get how even if it were more realistic, that the minimum bid on an item would be listed as $50,000, yet an absentee bidders puts in a bid for $25,000 notwithstanding the minimum bud. That just sounds like someone who's got nothing else to do, sorta like the folks in your auction who bid $1 knowing that 99.99% of the time they will not get it for a buck. They bid just for the purpose of catching you with your pants down with a power outtage or something that knocks your system out. Or, they bid just for shits and giggles knowing they will be outbid, but happy to pay a buck if something falls through the cracks.
Anyway, whether it be you, Heritage, MoviePosterBid, Ebay or whatever other site might be out there, there is some form of abuse that could be concocted on a real or theoretical basis by someone who's bent on committing fraud. I think this all boils down to the character of the people we deal with. I have known you for years, and I would not say that you engage in misconduct, but that's based only on what I've seen over the years. The same holds true for Heritage. I've been buying from them for years as well, and while the hammer prices can be higher, they can also be lower than expected, even considering the bp. Heritage has too much at stake to sully it's reputation by shilling in the strictest sense of the term - having an insider bid the item up with the goal of raising the price and with no intent of winning it. Same goes for MPB. Ebay - well, it's ebay. It all happens over there.
I've been watching this thread and others for some time now. I think everyone has played nicely, even the competitors. But so far, the only one that's come up with any facts one way or another has been Mel, our super-sleuth.
I have done some of my own private investigating regarding the claims originally raised against Heritage, because those claims really got to me. After doing so, however, I am convinced that there is no shilling. I've seen sales data from a number of auctions, and those data do not support the theory that a shill is out there working for Heritage.
There's a bid difference between what could be and what is in this or any business. Hell, you could say that I'm a liar just because I'm a lawyer, and that wouldn't be either fair or true. Someone with no knowledge could just as easily say that any of the auction houses shill, yet have no proof of that. Accusations like these are serious and damaging to reputation. They should be discussed very carefully and the facts investigated just as carefully.
I was in court today - oral argument before the Fourth District Court of Appeal here in West Palm Beach. After I was done, I stayed to watch an former law school professor and appellate lawyer extraordinaire Bruce Rogow argue an appeal on behalf of Don King who is in litigation with ESPN over a story the agency did that did not paint Don in a sweet light, to say the least. The issue being discussed was what duty did ESPN have to investigate the facts such that it was not subject to King's defamation suit. The answer is that they must do an investigation if they have a subjective doubt as to whether the information being reported is true.
Now, that case involves a public figure versus a news agency, and thus the issues fall squarely into the First Amendment free speech law which provides that actual malice must be established before one can sue the news agency for a published falsehood. I question whether a big auction house like Heritage or Emovieposter.com is sufficiently in the public eye to warrant application of a heightened standard of review. But, the duty to investigate the facts falls squarely on anyone who would make accusations against either of them that they engage in shilling or some other form of fraudulent activity.
Here's the purpose of my diatribe -- let's remember that we are all people on this side of the keyboard. Be sensitive to that because I question whether some of the things that are said on these boards would be said in a face to face conversation or in a group setting where the participants are meeting in person. This is not censorship. It's common sense.
